This is a really big debate which has good and bad points on each side.
On one hand GMO crops can be developed to be resistant to diseases, pests, molds and fungus's, droughts and floods, making it possible to have high yielding crops anywhere in the world which will be able to feed more people, people in places like Africa where they have problems with over population and famine. We, or the scientists, can produce better, more productive and resistant crops than nature can, and we can eliminate the need for pesticides and other agricultural chemicals which can damage us and the environment.
On the other hand there is the implications on what might happen if these GMO varieties were released into the environment. Whose to tell what effects it would have on the local and global ecosystems. But I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that eating GMO foods has any negative effect out our health.
There is a cost issue as well to think about. It costs a whole lot more to produce GMO crops than normal crops so who really can afford it? Probably not the people who most need it.
I think a lot more research needs to take place and maybe the GMO debate will never be fully resolved. The potential implications on the ecosystems from GMO crops is a big big issue, the main one from where i stand. They certainly need to do more research into that. Is messing with nature really such a good thing? I suppose it comes under the same issues as cloning and designer babies, it still has a big question mark next to it.
Tim Minchin - The Good Bookhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kr1I3mBojc0
'If you just close your eyes and block your ears, to the acumulated knowlage of the last 2000 years,
then morally guess what your off the hook, and thank Christ you only have to read one book'